Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16
, the department of defense at the top of the list, in making sure that those dollars go to american companies. but there are circumstances in which the buy-american provisions are waived. there are a number of ways that you can waive those provisions, but it's important for us to have full transparency and disclosure when the department of transportation and when fhwa is considering awarding a major project funded by american taxpayers to a foreign company. you see, when the buy-american statute is waived the requirement that american material be used is null and void. and so what this bill says is that when the fhwa provides public notice that they are considering waiving the buy-america clause for a particular project, that they include in that public notice a consideration of the impact on american jobs. it's worth knowing whether a waiver is simply going to result in the loss of ten american jobs or the loss of 500 american jobs, and this amendment very simply says that when a waiver to the buy-america law is pending, that we should know from the department of transportation and from fhwa
for managing park concessionaires so much of model used by the defense department and its base exchanges and recreational facilities and to pursue bonding and revolving loans. i would like to mention fenty the significant impact of sequestration from the budgetary cuts to the national park service and its related bureaus. sequestration was designed to be inflexible damaging and indiscriminate and it is. it is undermining the work we need to do one or many fronts. it's increasing increasing our backlogs and eroding our workforce and differing important work. to conclude the national park service will continue to pursue new and creative ways to address its funding needs and i want to thank our many partners who are here who have come to us with these ideas and i appreciate the support of congress to resolve this extraordinary challenge. thank you. >> director jarvis thank you very much. because of the numbers of senators here i'm just going to ask one question of director jarvis to get us started and recognize my colleagues. director jarvis or decades the park service has recommended expan
of defense procures weapons systems, a system that is to a large degree broken, unfortunately. it is now even more important with defense funding likely to be restrained to reduce funding in the coming years, our legislators overseeing major defense acquisition programs to make sure they're efficient and effectsive is as important today as it's ever been. indeed, even more so. a recently released government accountability office, g.a.o., report that is highly critical of the navy's literal combat ship program brings me to the floor today. on that program, the navy plans to spend over $40 billion to buy a total of 52 sea frames and 64 so-called plug-and-play mission modules. these are modules that would be moved on and off depending on the mission that the literal combat ship is engaged in. the combined capability of those modules with the sea frames is supposed to give thee ships their intended lethality. until recently, my main concern with this program has been the unbridled growth to the cost to build the sea frames of the lead ship. the lead ship called the freedom, the steel-hulled versi
split between defense and domestic spending. and so what you're going to see in september is a real fight over that. democrats in the budget have presented. we don't respect. are going to have a grand bargain in september. republicans said we already have a grand bargain. that would be enough to make it difficult, but then you have libertarian, republican party. pass spending bills unless obamacare is defunded another dime goes to funding it. that is huge. that is another one. you're going to seek abortion arguments. so this is -- it's going to be a dramatic nine days. it is a congress that has not functioned well for some people would say even at all, but my own sense is that republicans are leading loud and clear. if they shut down the government again it is going to be something like what happened to newt gingrich in 1995. republicans have newly taken over the house. it provoked a crisis with president clinton and the government shut down twice. and in the and republicans are blamed. the next election. republicans would actually -- let think there will do everything possible to a
government facilitated by uganda's missile defense. mr. president we believe the talks between the government of the drc provide the best opportunity for resolving the crisis. the engagement between a government must be given priority for durable and peaceful solution. the successful conclusion of these talks will no doubt have a positive contribution in the national -- in the drc. we are glad to inform the council that since december 2012 there has been some progress in the talks with two key milestones. first the review of the peace agreement of 2009 between the government of the drc and the cm bp and agree on the status of implementation which was a significant step in confidence building. secondly, both parties have presented -- in 2013 in one draft and subject to negotiations. while these are commendable they raise serious concern about the commitment to the talks. before security council -- conclude the talks. the kona community to provide financial support to the mechanisms such as the fusion center and expanded unification unification -- mr. president the renewed fighting between the
defense -- quadrennial defense review produced by the department of defense concluded that climate change will affect the military and its missions, in particular low lying naval institutions such as pearl harbor hickham that could leave parts of the base flooded requiring millions of dollars in costly upgrades. with the united states rebalancing to the asian pacific region, sustaining our naval capabilities will be increasingly important for hawaii and for our nation. i know that the senator from rhode island has concerns about his own state and i yield to him. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: as the senator from hawaii said it's not just hawaii, it's not just rhode island actually, it is all of our states that will be affected. dr. lynen who testified at our e.p.w. hearing is from florida atlantic university and she highlighted 0-sensitive florida will be to climate change. in her testimony she said the caribbean florida region has shown sea surface temperatures increase about two degrees fahrenheit per decade. concurre
, saying last week that he found s&p's puffery defense to be -- quote -- "deeply and unavoidably troubling." s&p's rationale should strike us all as deeply and unavoidably troubling because their legal defense -- this is s&p's legal defense -- says that no one could possibly rely on their ratings. but that was their job, to provide independent, objective, accurate ratings. millions of americans lost their jobs because s&p didn't do its job. they didn't -- s&p didn't do their one job. they have one job -- to provide accurate ratings. they didn't do their one job. they have no other job. i'm glad the department of justice is pursuing this case. but d.o.j.'s action is not enough. it is backward-looking, and it addresses past hamplet harms. my concern is that -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. franken: i would ask for about five more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you. thank you. i'm glad the d.o.j. case is going forward. but, as said, it is not enough. it is backward-looking and addresses past harms. my concern is that the cond
security kind of levels off, discretionary spending we actually have made some both defense and nondefense, we've seen that go down. other mandatory programs. as you can see, mr. president, when it comes to deficit reduction and getting our debt under control, entitlement reform, that upper line that is going off the charts, is where the bodies are buried. yet if you listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the problem is not our entitlement programs. the problem, they say, is that the american people simply aren't being taxed enough. of course, the actual numbers tell a different story. over the last 40 years, federal revenues as a percentage of the gross domestic product have averaged roughly 17.9%. while in recent years that number has decreased due to the struggling economy, tax revenues are at a pace to rise above the historic average and settle around 19% of g.d.p. let me repeat that. absent any changes in tax law, revenues are set to rise above historic levels relative to g.d.p. or the gross domestic product. so despite my friends' claims to the contrary, the root of our
. they called at this time national defense education act. it was all about america's defense. and what they said was, we will loan money to student loans across -- students across america to go to college. i think that their rationale was sound. if more americans went to college and got educated we would have the engineers and scientists we need to make this a strong nation from a defense point of view and from our economy point of view. so i thank the russians for launching sputnik and i thank the congress for creating the national defense education act because a kid from east stlooth st. louis, illinois, whose parents had eighth grade educations had a chance to go to college and he's standing here today in the united states senate. it was a good deal, too. the national defense education act said you don't have to pay it back until after you graduate, ten equal payments at 3% interest. i remember these because i was frightened to death in 1969 when i finished law school and added up all my student loans and they said to me you owe $8,500. i went home to my wife and i said we're doomed
-- you know. and, you know, there was an honest to god defense -- difference of opinion between the two sides. you had to reconcile who was going to be right and whoches going to be wrong. at the same time you had independent pollsters who had had some screening questioning. questions designed to ascertain who is and who isn't likely to vote. for example, historically people how much interest do you have in the upcoming election. historically that's been a pretty good question to determine who isn't and is likely to vote. apparently in 2012, it didn't work. a lot of the traditional questions that had usually worked didn't work in 2012. and so you sort of had the fill philosophical difference what the electorate was. it was going -- you had legitimate people that didn't have a thumb on the scale in any dprix direction that were using traditionally reliability yardsticks that weren't right. and so you had some result that were, you know, all over the map. and we're now beginning to see a lot more sort of nontraditional polling. both the obama and the romney campaigns. yes, they were doing
constantly use to attack the whole defined contribution concept and industry. the best defense of existing savings incentives, in my view, is to go on the offense and extend them to everyone. the third action step we need to take is to lift the bar on savings rates across the workplace savings system from the roughly 7% level we have achieved today through the current system to a new baseline of 10% plus or there is -- plus. there is no more driver of success than deferral rate. and i feel a fiduciary duty again to call for a 10% plus as the new industry baseline. we don't really serve anyone well by allowing them to believe that saving 3%, 5%, or even 7% is enough to ensure retirement readiness. so let's tell the people the truth, even if it's the hard truth. i know these three steps, to retirement security, are easy to say but hard to do. securing savings access for all will surely require a new legislation. moving to full auto designs, plus 10% less than deferral will require changing plan design and lifting current savings rates by 40-50% across tens of thousands of plans, and amman mi
question, though, we should remember that we've cut defense, we've cut domestic discretionary, and we've raised revenues. >> right. >> what we haven't done is dealt with social security or medicare. so the premise of your question that one party won't raise revenues, now, they're back to saying they won't raise revenues, we've done revenues, what we haven't done is party reform. since we're both sort of political independents, you would have wanted to invite some of the far right, but they would say, listen, we've done everything, but we haven't done entitlement reform yet. >> see, but that's a great example of how this conversation gets skewed in this perspective because one of the reasons why we have medicare -- we have done, actually, we have taken a lot of money out of medicare. we have lots of reform in medicare. it's in the accountable care act, it's just not counted -- >> but it went back into a new program. >> there's deficit reduction at the end of that because we're taking money out of health care reform be, i mean, there's lower money in medicare, and we're taking money out
think it's fitting that friday is a job day and you get to do your blogging and defenses. what's it like to be the hearse and who was thrown out there on jobs days month after month, sometimes it's good news, often overdone it was bad news? >> is not the easiest day of the month for me. i tell you what i find problematic about it. i tried to take a long view, the numbers are very volatile. i added a paragraph to my statement as the administration cautions every month, the jobs number's are very volatile, they get revised, and people make too much out of the monthly numbers. i had not -- in the month report. what i try to do is look at the 12 month change. there are issues about adjustments causing some blips in the data also. if you look at the change from july to july, you abstract from that. and i've found if you look over the course of this recovery, on a rolling 12 month basis, we've been creating about 2 million, 2.1, 2.2 million jobs a year for the last two and half years. and i think when you look at in that perspective, you're a little bit less inclined to overreact to the news,
of defense and of the u.s. agency for international development. in addition, my service as the fhfa inspector general demonstrates i have the skills, judgment and experience necessary to manage a large office of inspector general and in dependably oversee an agency with significant program responsibilities and financial resources. in this role, i've gained 80 appreciation for the critical mission of inspectors general within the federal government agencies as well as the importance of conducting vigorous an independent objective oversight. as fhfa's first inspector general, i was responsible for building an organization from the ground up and putting high during approximately 140 professionals. my office of oversight responsibilities for fannie mae and freddie mac, which have received approximately $187 billion to keep them solvent -- this is taxpayer money. from the outset of the office formation, by employing innovative strategies to maximize results, including collaborating with inspectors general to leverage resources and benefit from best practices. to date, my team has publish
contract corruption task force. it included the state department ig, department of defense, sigar, sigir and i was intricately involved in usaid as well. fbi, was very involved in working this case. case. i supervise, also is deputy chief of the front section at the time in many of those cases were provided to folks in my section. so i supervi a lot of the prosecution involved in iraq and afghanistan, and they involved corruption, bribery, all sorts of contract fraud. so i'm very familiar with that. >> good, that's because and i didn't do kabul in that realm. >> in late march the state department's oig notified the department is going to start a special review of the accountability review board process in order to determine, i think the effectiveness of the whole process, but also specifically mentioned recommendations regarding are convening in the aftermath of benghazi. i would love to talk about how that worked as progressing or you are not there yet, what would be your hope in terms of continuing that work and looking at the accountability and how they can be made most helpful to the
. the secretary then certifies that her department has achieved operational control. the defense of operational control is weakened from current lawsm thlaw.the bill defines it- quote -- "conditions in which there is not lower than 90% illegal border crossing effectiveness rate informed by situational awareness and a significant reduction in the movement of illicit drugs and other contraband through such areas." the government accountability office would attest if certification for operational control is truly done. what if the secretary never certifies this? what if the g.a.o. says the secretary's certification isn't accurate. if the department fails to achieve control of the border, then they have to issue a report to explain why. again, it lacks any true accountability for this or any future administration to actually secure the border. finally, i want to mention one part of the house bill that is most concerning to me. during committee markup, an amendment in the house was accepted that would require a plan on the exit tracking system and unfortunately there's no beef to it. implementation
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16